The_Six_Fingered_Man:"Advocates for gun rights under current law." What the hell does this mean? The man is a well respected lawyer. I certainly would hope that he advocates that a citizen should be able to exercise their rights under current law.

He pretends to be a "reasonable" "anti-gun" guy to make Fox viewers feel good.

He claims to be for an extreme stance, 2nd amendment repeal. Which is absolutely scheduled to happen immediately after my legal polygamous marriage with Scarlett Johansson, Freida Pinto and Maria Sharapova. How brave of him.

"Look at me, I'm a far left liberal who sides with FOX viewers on every practical issue. You must all be independent thinkers!"

Popcorn Johnny:gimmegimme: No, I am saying that Zimmy's "OK" does not prove anything. Why don't we stick to the facts of the case?

It does prove something, that he stopped running after the person on the other end of the phone said that he didn't need to be following. We also know that Zimmerman reported losing sight of Trayvon and that he stayed on the phone for almost two minutes after that.

How about you lay some facts out that prove that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, rather than defending himself from a violent assault? Remember, we don't need to prove that Zimmerman is innocent, we need to prove he's guilty. Now's your chance to do that.

Duder, I can speak the words "I had sex with Kristen Bell for several years in the early-to-mid 2000s," but that doesn't prove anything, does it? Zimmy lied to the court about how much money he had and that wasn't exactly true, was it?

And I never said that Zimmerman is guilty of murder; can we stick to the facts of what I'm saying?

Y U ACKNOWLEDGE ASSAULT OF MARTIN ON ZIMMY

BUT NO ACCEPT AT LEAST POSSIBILITY OF ASSAULT OF ZIMMY ON MARTIN, ESPECIALLY WITH FATAL GUNSHOT WOUND?

As an Aussie I really have no interest in this case. But I lived in Savannah, GA for a short while during the Reagan years and saw the white jocks at my military school taunt the black kids by saying "Your grand daddy was my grand daddies slave, boy".

I don't see that as the typical American viewpoint.

I do, however, find it quite interesting that Popcorn Johnny(who I have previously tagged as "Utter Scum" for some reason) has been continuously posting on this thread for fourteen farking hours.

Get a farking life, son.

Seriously, grow the fark up. Try to be something other than a piss poor excuse for a human being, there's a good lad.

fredklein:ChaosStar: fredklein: Loaded Six String: If you consider every person who carries a weapon, be it a gun, knife, sword, or kubotan to be looking for a confrontation you have a definite bias against said people, despite how they may actually feel about being involved in a violent altercation.

Not everyone who carries a weapon is spoiling for a fight. But they often are more likely to get into one, knowing they have a weapon. Having a weapon makes you more powerful. And, for some, that leads to... lets say, overconfidence.

Oh manI'm gonna need to see a citation for that one sparky

Well, try looking up how many men with guns/bombs/weapons rob banks. Then look up how many unarmed men rob banks.Then look up how many muggings are committed by an armed man, and how many by an unarmed man.Then look up how many fights are started by muscular men (hey-muscles are weapons, too!), and how many are started by 90-pound weaklings.

Face it, having a weapon makes people more powerful than those who have no weapon. And having power changes how you think, and changes your actions.

Thingster:Every state I've lived in has a "you can start a fight, but if you back away and the other guy keeps after you, he's the aggressor" law.

So, I can slap you, then quickly step back. And if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.Cool. So, I step forward and punch you, and quickly step back, and if you hit me back, you are the aggressor.I step forward and shoot you, and quickly step back, and if you shoot me back, you are the aggressor.

Livingroom:gimmegimme: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Compared to a gunshot wound to the chest?

Yes.

Maybe Zimmy shouldn't have started a fight he couldn't finish...

Hey look, the people that know absolutely nothing about the case are here to make assumptions.

Friend, a random citizen took it upon himself to follow a kid around in armed pursuit in a vehicle and then on foot. The target didn't know if he was going to be raped or kidnapped or stabbed or shot in the chest from a few inches away.

But I suppose you wouldn't consider it starting a fight if someone did the same thing to you.

no, i wouldnt be wearing a goddamn hoody slinking through a rich neighbourhood at night IN THE SUMMER. that spells disaster, always has, always will.

Moral of the story is...

Next time you go walking through a rich neighborhood; don't dress up like a gunshot victim.

Prometheus_Unbound:That makes no sense. If that was Zimmerman's intent, why the fark would he call police in the first place?

Duh, he was obviously setting up the perfect crime. That's the same reason he mentored a black kid a couple years earlier and why he was the only person to welcome an elderly black woman to the neighborhood. This was a murder planned for years in advance.

ChaosStar:Satan's Girlfriend: ChaosStar: My "dog whistle terminology"?Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.Tell me I'm wrong, please do.

Let's see here. He called Martin a thug. Martin is black. Yeah, how could I ever make that connection *rolls eyes*

Again Mr Troll, you made the connection, not the op. You're the one assuming to know what the op meant by thug, whether he meant it that way or not is irrelevant, as you had no possible way of knowing what he meant unless you can read minds through tcp/ip connections.

Surely he meant this guy./Zimm was defending us all from Indian death cults.

ChaosStar:My "dog whistle terminology"?Are you saying I'm using words only canines can hear? Or is this some other stupid term people like you use to sound educated?Fact of the matter is the op said thug, you equated thug to black person not the op, then you called the op racist.Tell me I'm wrong, please do.

Let's see here. He called Martin a thug. Martin is black. Yeah, how could I ever make that connection *rolls eyes*

WhoopAssWayne:A juvenile delinquent with photographs of petty crimes and drugs on his phone, walking through a rich neighborhood to steal something, then picking a fight with a homeowner in his front yard.

Where do you have proof that he fought in Zimmerman's own yard? And you do know that Martin was staying in that same neighborhood right?

gimmegimme:TuteTibiImperes: Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense. Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway. While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.

Think about what you're saying and the consequences. If Zim had let Martin get away, the kid would have eaten Skittles and had some Arizona while watching the second half of a basketball game.

It's curious that I've seen virtually nothing written about the fact the Martin had years of football training in his past. Not only has it been documented that he was into a culture of orchestrated fight club type fighting scenes, but his football training. i.e., violent aggression training and toughening process for full contact interaction with other large and powerful young adults, also is a major factor in understanding his willingness to initial a violent confrontation. Don't most of you understand just how completely football drilling and training separates out athletes (especially full-contact sport athletes) from the general public? Among other things, Martin has given the youth football programs a black eye by grossly abusing and misusing his skills, power, and strength, God Rest His Soul and may he rest in peace.

Zimmerman? Well, he's a fat and excitable young man; much fatter now that the stress factors in his life are through the roof. He had no chance in a fight with Martin. He was screaming on that tape. Any fool can hear it. He most likely WOULD have died had he not shot Martin.

TuteTibiImperes:Popcorn Johnny: gimmegimme: Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense. Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

The 911 call recording has the operator telling Zimmerman that he doesn't need to Trayvon, but he does anyway. While Trayvon may have started the physical altercation later, none of it would have happened had Zimmerman just phoned in the suspicious person sighting and let the police handle it from there.

Think about what you're saying and the consequences. If Zim had let Martin get away, the kid would have eaten Skittles and had some Arizona while watching the second half of a basketball game.

gimmegimme:Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense. Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

So which one is your side going with, Trayvon was a scared little kid trying to get away from a stalker, or that he was a man standing his ground? Considering his close proximity to his home, it has to be one or the other.

As for speculations, there's nothing wrong with them in these threads. What's wrong is the people, mostly on your side, that speculate as to what they think happened and then come to a conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty based on those speculations.

I say that Zimmerman is innocent not based on my speculations, but because there's no evidence that contradicts his version of events, and no evidence that he was the aggressor, or that he was not defending himself from great bodily harm when the shot was fired.

Livingroom:self defense does not mean preemptively attacking somebody just "because they're following you" hoodie or not. self defense is what zimmerman did: after suffering a broken nose and having his head bashed in, he used self defense.

Let me guess, you think Martin was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?

Popcorn Johnny:As for your question. I'm 6'2, 210 pounds and very capable of defending myself. If I was walking home from the store and suddenly thought I was being followed, or even chased and was in fear for my life, here's what I would do. First I would take off running, calling 911 at the same time. I would also be shouting my ass off for help while running through the neighborhood. I'd also start banging on the nearest door screaming for help if I couldn't make it home.

Now let me ask you, if Trayvon was a scared little kid, why didn't he do any of these things?

Okay so Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground because when he was stalking Trayvon, Trayvon refused to scream and find a phone to call 911 and chose to stand his ground.

Popcorn Johnny:gimmegimme: I ask out of genuine curiosity. What would be your reaction if, the next time you're walking through your neighborhood, you notice someone rolling alongside you in a car and then they begin to follow you on foot?

Trayvon never knew he was being followed on foot, he took off running around a corner before Zimmerman exited his vehicle.

As for your question. I'm 6'2, 210 pounds and very capable of defending myself. If I was walking home from the store and suddenly thought I was being followed, or even chased and was in fear for my life, here's what I would do. First I would take off running, calling 911 at the same time. I would also be shouting my ass off for help while running through the neighborhood. I'd also start banging on the nearest door screaming for help if I couldn't make it home.

Why would he "take off running behind a corner" unless he feared for his safety, knowing he was in danger?

Now let me ask you, if Trayvon was a scared little kid, why didn't he do any of these things?

Perhaps he knew that he had the right to self-defense. Who knows?

///Gosh, I hate when people come into the thread and start speculating about things they don't know.

Yes, a broken nose and bleeding wounds to the back of the head are "superficial". Let me guess, you think Zimmerman was obligated to wait until he suffered a skull fracture before defending himself, right?